before starting my argument i want to make somethings clear. here the credibility of NASA is in question. so we should not believe in them. we should examine their claim based on our daily experience and common sense. our source of knowledge won't be NASA but daily experience.now lets start the debate....

1] stars don't appear in the sky

NASA says that moon's surface reflects sunlight and that glare would have made stars difficult to see. but hay stars are visible at night when there is no sunlight. so how sunlight prevents stars from being visible? is apollo landed on the day or at night? the sky is dark, so i think they landed at night.

they also say that the astronauts photographed their lunar adventures using fast exposure settings, which would have limited incoming background light. but everything in the picture were clearly and brightly visible. is it possible if limited background light comes in camera?

2] no landing crater created by apollo 11

nasa says that the lander's engines were throttled back just before landing, and it did not hover long enough to form a crater or kick up much dust. we cannot know what actually happened there on the moon. why we should believe them?

3] lighting varies and shadow differs.

nasa said there were multiple light sources, Launius said. "You've got the sun, the Earth's reflected light, light reflecting off the lunar module, the spacesuits, and also the lunar surface.

among these light sources only sun is for sure.so one light source should be there. again is it day or night?

many people can say that day and night of sun and earth do not match. but there is no scientific basis of that claim.

4] Footprints Too Clear

nasa said Moon dust, or regolith, is "like a finely ground powder. When you look at it under a microscope, it almost looks like volcanic ash. So when you step on it, it can compress very easily into the shape of a boot."

you know footprint can be taken on a wet thing. the foot print shown in the photograph is so clear that it cannot be taken on a dry thing.we know this from our daily experience of wet and dry things. so nasa's claim is meaningless.

5] flags wave

nasa said:flag's moving is because the astronaut just placed it there, and the inertia from when they let go kept it moving.The astronauts also accidentally bent the horizontal rods holding the flag in place several times, creating the appearance of a rippling flag in photographs.

moving by inertia? like this ? it is a clear waving of flag in air and no inertia can move it like this. you can test it by placing a flag in an airless place and moving it. the flag will not ripple, i predict that.

A Note Before RebuttalsMy opponent stated in Round 1 that the debate would be "based on common sense and not on scientific information." Because there is such an obvious blur between what is considered common sense and what is considered uncommon scientific knowledge, which is what I assume my opponent means as "scientific information," I will disregard this rule. In order to fully explain how my opponent's against the Moon landing are untrue, I will have to use scientific knowledge.

Rebuttal 1: Lack of StarsMy opponent argues that the photographs taken by lunar astronauts on the Moon's surface are fabricated because of the lack of visible stars. He gives NASA's explanation in a somewhat correct format stating, “NASA says that moon's surface reflects sunlight and that glare would have made stars difficult to see.” He then goes on to explain the supposed dishonesty in this explanation, stating: “...stars are visible at night when there is no sunlight. so how sunlight prevents stars from being visible? [...] the sky is dark, so i think they landed at night.”

Firstly, there is no "day" or "night" on the surface of the Moon, at least not in the earthly way we think about it. Because the Moon orbits around the Earth and because of the Earth's simultaneous revolution around the Sun, the Moon experiences different periods of brightness and darkness, thus rendering my opponent's statement that Apollo "landed at night" false. Furthermore, stars are not visible during the day because of the Sun's overwhelming brightness -- just like stars are not visible from the Moon because of the overwhelming brightness of reflected sunlight. This is of course coupled with the fast exposure creates the illusion that there are no stars in the sky.

There are less famous long-exposure photographs from the Moon's surface that show stars in their correct positions around the night sky.1

Rebuttal 2: Lack of Landing Crater

I really didn’t understand this argument the first time I read this. My opponent practically gave the reason for the lack of a landing crater. He says, “the lander's engines were throttled back just before landing, and itdid not hover long enough to form a crater or kick up much dust.” His only rebuttal is “why we should believe them?”

Firstly, this is not an argument. This is something like a reverse appeal to authority. Secondly, there is no single source that I can give that shows NASA’s credibility in astrophysics. However, I can state that NASA has sent thousands of rockets and satellites into orbit around the Earth, developed cheaper and more reliable methods to do so, and has increased our knowledge of the observable Universe exponentially since its creation. There is a lot more credibility to a finding by NASA than a theory from a common person like you or me.

Thirdly, how do we know Socrates ever existed? How do we know the great Napoléon ever existed? We trust this information because it is widely accepted and taught. I am not advocating a total and unquestionable acceptance of everything we are told; I am, however, advocating recognition of credibility. Lastly, I would just like to point out that NASA’s explanation makes perfect sense.

Rebuttal 3: Different Lighting

My opponent states “among these light sources only sun is for sure.so one lightsource should be there. again is it day or night?” I don’t understand how only the Sun is certain as a source for light. Reflection of light off all of the items you listed makes perfect sense. For instance, the reason we can see the moon at night is because it is reflecting the light of the Sun,2 so it makes sense that we could see the Earth from the Moon for the same reason. Reflection of light off every object is actually what allows us to see our environment, so the rest of this argument follows the same reasoning.

Rebuttal 4: Clear Footprints

I have nothing to say. NASA’s claim makes more sense than what you are saying. In fact, I have no idea what you are saying.

Rebuttal 5: Flag Waving

Ah, I was waiting for this! My opponent states that “moving by inertia? like this ? it is a clear waving of flag in air and no inertiacan move it like this.” He later states: “you can test it by placing a flag in an airless place andmoving it. the flag will not ripple, i predict that.”

Inertia is resistance to change in motion.3 This basically means that if an object is moving, it will continue moving, or if an object is at rest, it will stay at rest. This law, however, is disturbed by environmental factors such as air; the lack of air on the Moon allows for less interference with inertia. I don’t exactly understand what my opponent means “no inertia can move it like this” because inertia is relative to the motion of the object, but I can guarantee you that inertia does cause objects to continue moving if they are already in motion.

If the rod of the flag was bent by the astronauts, this is a perfectly sound explanation for the ripples seen in the photographs. There is no reason, nor any amount of non-expert “prediction” to disagree with scientists on lunar physics.

Conclusion

I have thoroughly shown that my opponent’s arguments against the Moon landing are untrue. He himself provided the explanations from NASA, saving me some time in my research; he has so far used his own expertise and prediction to negate NASA’s explanations, but as you can see, the reasoning used by NASA is perfectly sound.

first of all i give my opponent a chance to be impartial in this debate. but my

opponent chooses to be partial. he favours NASA over common sense because NASA sends more satellite,gave more information about space than a common man like me can do. so he chooses to believe every word NASA says.he has an unshakable faith on NASA that "NASA can never lie".

for his information, i want to mention a well known fact that NASA is a govt. funded organization. it means that NASA is totally controlled by the U.S. govt. you know, in these days those who have money have control over everything.an act was passed in US congress called the National Aeronautics and Space Act. NASA was established by this act. so it is a purely statutory body controlled by the us govt. each year a portion of federal tax money goes to NASA.

it means NASA could do anything the US govt. wants. anything. even lying.

lets see the arguments:

1] Lack of Stars

we could call the brightness day and darkness night. so moon has night and day like earth.from my opponent's argument it is clear that apollo landed on moon on a moon day. so stars might not be visible. but why then the sky is dark as night? besides how my opponent knows that moon has no day and night like earth? has he visited moon personally? or just blindly believing the informations given by a govt. funded agency?

2] Lack of Landing Crater

i don't believe in nasa because it has an experience of space excavation.we cannot go back to past to examine the validity of historical claims. so we have to rely on them until time travel is possible. but this is not the case with moon. we can understand some natural day to day phenomena. we don't need uncommon explanation for common daily phenomena.

3]Different Lighting

all the items that reflected light are reflecting the sunlight. so sun is the only

source of light. but aldrin standing in the shadow of spacecraft are not reflecting

sunlight because in shadow there was no sunlight. so which light aldrin is

reflecting? are astronuts opening a movie studio on moon?

4] Clear Footprints

of course sir since you are blindly faithful to nasa.

5]Flag Waving

this is the most stupid answer i have ever heard. if your argument as well as

nasa's explanation is true then there should be no such thing called wind.why don't you try to wave a flag in an airless place by inertia?

more arguments...........

1] in the time of space race (1958 to 1980), medical science at that time did not

know what would happen to a human in the weightlessness of space. how then usa can send men to moon and successfully without harm to health return them to earth?

2] if you carefully study the space race you will find the following fantastic

thing:

a] on 12th april 1961, russia send gagarin in vostok 1. 1 year later, on 20

February 1962, america sent john glenn to space. both of them orbit the earth. how come america discovered the technology within 1 year?

b] On 20 April 1961, about one week after Gagarin's flight, American President John F. Kennedy sent a memo to Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, asking him to look into the state of America's space program, and into programs that could offer NASA the opportunity to catch up. Johnson responded about one week later, concluding that the United States needed to do much more to reach a position of leadership. Johnson recommended that a piloted moon landing was far enough in the future that it was likely that the United States could achieve it first.

c] from 1962 to 1965 russia has experimented with vostok and voskhod which was successful. nobody knows what america did in this 4 years. but from 1965 to 1966, america achieved many firsts directly taking advantage of russia's vostoks and voskhods using their gemini spacecraft.

d] then in 1967 and 1968 russia started their luner programme which was highly unsuccessful. after that america successfully land man on moon in 1969.from all these events it is clear that in space race russia leads and america follows. it is clear that america uses succesful russian technology to do their space excavation.most probably america stole those technology from russia.

but how come america become successful in moon landing when russia failed to do it? don't you think something fishy here?

all these poins lead to one conclusion: america never made it. america fake it.

My opponent says that he gave me “a chance to be impartial in this debate.” This is a ridiculous claim, as partiality goes both ways. Just as I trust NASA over what you believe to be common sense, you trust what you believe to be common sense over NASA. Levying a claim that I am partial towards NASA is absurd when you take into account that you are partial in the opposite sense. My opponent also puts “‘NASA can never lie’” in quotation marks as if I said this; this is a dishonest thing to do as I never said anything of the sort, I merely stated that I trust NASA over your own “common sense.” Now, onto the actual argument.

Rebuttal 1: Government agency

My opponent’s argument here is “NASA is totally controlled by the U.S. govt.” and therefore “could do anything the US govt. wants. anything. even lying.” Not only is NASA an independent agency of the United States Government,1 but this claim has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Of course NASA is a Government agency, and of course it is funded by the Government, but all my opponent has stated is that NASA could do anything the Government wants. I guess this means that since the Government could make NASA lie about the type of paint they use on their rockets, they do. All my opponent has stated is that NASA is a Government agency, which I fully agree with; this claim, however, implies nothing that is not already obvious.

Rebuttal 2: Lack of Stars

No, no, no. The Moon does not have a “day” or “night.” The Earth’s rotation on its axis is what causes our periods of brightness and darkness, which humanity has dubbed day and night. The Moon, in addition to rotating,2 also revolves around the Earth, which is rotating at a different speed and revolving around the Sun. All of this rotation and revolution causes the Earth and the Moon to have very different periods of brightness and darkness, and we cannot simply say that Apollo landed during the “day” or during the “night” because it’s nonsense to say either way; when we use these terms we are always talking about earthly day and night.

Stars were visible to the astronomers, because our eyes are a little more advanced than the camera they used, but the brightness of the sunlight reflected off the Moon is what causes the stars to seemingly disappear in the photographs. This is directly observable on Earth; there are much more stars visible in a rural countryside than in the middle of the light-polluted Times Square. Like I stated previously, the short exposure time of the camera also had an effect on the disappearance of stars, and my opponent has not opposed my evidence of the long-exposure picture of the stars around Earth.

Rebuttal 3: Lack of Landing Crater

My opponent states: “i don't believe in nasa because it has an experience of space excavation [sic].” I have no idea how to respond to this. If you are not willing to listen to an agency that has been to space, experimented in space, and returned results that were predicted by physicists beforehand, and instead on rely on your own “common sense” that only applies to the surface of the Earth, then go ahead. However, you must understand that although you believe “we don't need uncommon explanation for common daily phenomena,” you are referring to how objects act on the Earth. The Moon’s surface composition, gravitational pull, and environment are radically different from what you are used to.

My opponent has sarcastically asked again and again if I have ever been to the Moon; however, I am merely restating what the men who actually have been to the Moon have said, whereas my opponent is literally basing this off theories he has formulated in his head.

Rebuttal 4: Different Lighting

My opponent says that since the objects on the Moon “are reflecting the sunlight,” the Sun is the only light source. Even if the object is not generating the actual light, they are still reflecting this light. This accounts for basically all of the claims levied against the Apollo photographs that are supposedly lit in a movie studio. Remember, light from reflection is still light!

Rebuttal 5: Flag Waving

My opponent states that wind is impossible if inertia exists. Wind is the movement of air molecules,3which is allowed by inertia. The molecules of air in the wind must first be put into motion by a force, but the process that allows this motion to continue is inertia, as inertia states that an object in motion will stay in motion. However, do not have the misconception that I am arguing wind is what caused the flag to move.

A flag can be waved in an airless space by inertia. Air is not what causes objects to move, and this is blatantly obvious by watching the Moon travel around the Earth or the Earth about the Sun (these are actually caused by the gravitational attraction between the particles of the two objects). Acceleration is caused by a force acting upon an object (f = ma), which can cause an object to either speed up or slow down (sometimes to rest). After this acceleration, however, the object is kept in its current state by inertia. In the case of the Moon’s orbit about the Earth, gravity is the fundamental force that accelerates it around the Earth (acceleration also meaning a change in direction). In the case of a flag in airless space, the astronaut can apply a force that allows the flag to accelerate, and inertia is what keeps it in motion after the initial acceleration.

Rebuttal 6: Medical Knowledge

The factual evidence behind my opponent’s argument is true. One source writes,“There were known external threats to life, such as solar and ultraviolet radiation, meteorites, and extreme temperatures as well as issues for which the physicians and scientists could not even formulate the questions. And there was no time for controlled experiments with the required numbers of animal or human subjects. Of necessity, risks were evaluated and mitigated or accepted based on minimal data.” 4 However, NASA used previous spaceflights such as the Gemini program to determine if the Moon landing was safe. “The Gemini Program demonstrated the capability […] to support lunar landing and to enhance flight and ground crew operational experience.” 5

Rebuttal 7: Space Race

How were we successful in landing on the Moon when Russia failed? Russia’s manned lunar program all depended on the success of their N1 rocket, which was to bring their famous LK Lander to the Moon. However, when the N1’s result “was four launch failures and cancellation of the project five years after Apollo landed on the moon. Not only did a Soviet cosmonaut never land on the moon, but the Soviet Union even denied that the huge project ever existed.” 6 Where the N1 rocket failed, however, the American Saturn V succeeded. “The orbital operations and restart of the J2 subjected the instrument unit to the kind of sequencing critical for future lunar missions.” 7

my opponent has taught me many lesson in his argument which i think not only i but nobody else could ever imagine.

1] lesson 1: flag waving

till date i know that it is wind which moves things. my opponent boldly taught me that Air is not what causes objects to move.these are actually caused by the gravitational attraction between the particles of the two objects. well then we think that we don't need to move anything by force. things will move by the gravitational attraction between the particles of the two objects.that means if there are 2 objects, say A and B situated side by side, then without any kind of interferance object A will move towards object B because particles of these 2 objects attract each other.following this line of logic you can say that in this world nobody actually hurts nobody. if A hurts B with a knife, A is not guilty because A is helpless. it is the gravitational pull between particle of kinfe and B's body.

so flag can be moved in an airless space by gravitational pool. this kind of explanation, for weak people like me, is very hard to digest. so i refuse to accept it. i think only to show that man landed on the moon, this kind of explanation was invented.

2] lesson 2: landing crater

atmospheric setting of moon and earth are different so we should not judge luner event on the basis of earth events. this line of logic will make anything possible in the moon which is impossible on earth. there will be no way to test the validity of the luner events. we have to accept it as presented to us. so we should not buy this line of logic.

rocket expert bill kaysing said that actually rocket engines release 10000 pounds of jet that could move big rock bolders accross the land. from this fact we can understand that this same jet released by apollo on moon could create huge crater on moon.since atmospheric settings are different, then we can assume at least some scratch on ground should be there if not a big landing crater. there is not even a scratch on ground. it as if apollo landed with a parashute on the moon. it just can't make sense.

light from reflection is still light! so what? in movie studio isn't still light used? this lighting strengthen the point that moon landing was fake.

4] lesson 4: Lack of Stars

all you are saying are explanation given by nasa. so i am not trusting those things. why they don't use a better camera? don't they know that stars in the sky of the moon are also valuable scene? or are they using such kind of low grade camera just to deceive the audience?

5] lesson 5:nasa is govt. agency

this claim has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. no sir, this is the point. i thank you for agreeing with me. if nasa is funded by govt. and is a govt. agency like CIA or FBI then it can do anything govt. wants it to do. this point cast a shadow of doubt over nasa.

6] lesson 6: medical knowledge

The Gemini Program demonstrated the capability […] to support lunar landing and to enhance flight and ground crew operational experience. this statment is vague because it doesn't show how or what gemini programme teaches nasa that lunar landing is possible.

7] lesson 7:Space Race

i think russia failed to land on moon not because of failure of N1 rocket but because of economic crisis soviet union faces. success of america, after all these points is questionable.

one more new argument.....

1] distance and speed

the distance between earth and moon is such that If you could fly to the Moon at a constant speed of 1000 kilometers per hour, which is the speed of a fast passenger jet, it would take sixteen days to get there. Apollo astronauts reached the Moon in less than four days. how is that possible? do they have technology faster than fast passenger jet in those days?

I can see now that my explanation of physics completely confused you. I will now explain it better, point by point.

1A: Gravity

I was using gravity as an example of a force that causes objects to accelerate, not the actual force that caused the flag’s accelerated motion. Gravity is, as you said, the attraction between two particles which can be represented by A and B. With no other particles present, these two will be attracted at an accelerated rate. However, because there are trillions of particles in the Universe, and because they bond and form larger masses, it is not as simple as that. I used the Earth’s revolution about the Sun and the Moon’s revolution about the Earth as an example of gravity, because they are continually accelerating around the Sun. In your scenario about the knife and body, it is not gravity that attracted the two, it is the applied force of the hand that causes it to penetrate. Gravity is not strong enough to cause that kind of attraction. Note, however, that gravity is not the force that caused the flag to move.

1B: Inertia

Let me explain Newton’s law again. Consider an object in a state of motion or in a state of rest. Newton says that these objects will stay in constant, unaccelerated motion or rest if nothing acts upon it. However, if a force acts upon the object, it will cause the object to accelerate. This can mean that either the object speeds up, slows down, or changes direction. However, objects have a natural resistance to changes in motion, and this is called inertia. So if an object is at rest, it will want to stay at rest unless it is overcome by a force, or if an object is in constant unaccelerated motion it will want to stay in this motion unless acted on by a force. Again, gravity is a force, and it is what continually accelerates the Earth around the Sun, but I only mean gravity as an example and not the actual explanation for the flag’s motion.

1C: Flag inertia

Now that we have those explanations out of the way, I can move on to the flag. Remember that the flag is at rest inside the lunar capsule until it is acted on by a force (the astronaut’s hand) that places it on the surface of the Moon (an applied force by the astronaut’s hand). The force of the pole hitting the surface of the moon brought the flag out of its rest state and caused it to move. And remember, inertia keeps an object in motion (or rest) until another force causes it to change. This is why inertia caused the flag to stay in motion.

Rebuttal 2: Landing Crater

Oh, dear. No, I am not saying anything that is impossible on Earth is possible on the Moon. I said, “The Moon’s surface composition, gravitational pull, and environment are radically different from what you are used to.” This naturally causes a change in the situation. For instance, because of the Moon’s lower gravity, the lunar capsule would not have had to propel as much to slow down as it landed. This is just one of the many reasons why the landing crater is not there. The craters on the Moon were formed after asteroid impact – this says a lot, because asteroids (of different size) must be going around 36,000 to 160,000 mph to form even a small crater.1 To put this in perspective, the lunar module was traveling around 1.7 to 2.7 km/s,2 or 3,083 to 6,040 mph, significantly less, as it was descending. It touched the lunar surface at a much lower speed.

My opponent states statistics about rocket engines, but fails to take into account that a rocket had nothing to do with the lunar landing. The lunar capsule was the object that landed on the Moon, and I have already demonstrated how the lunar descent was much slower than my opponent anticipated. Your so-called “common sense” simply does not work when discussing actions on a literal astronomical scale. Additionally, my opponent wrote “source” but provided no source.

Rebuttal 3: Different Light

My opponent’s argument here is literally: “so what? in movie studio isn't still light used?” Yes, artificial lighting is used in movie studios. Artificial lighting is also used in stadiums. That must mean the astronauts were in a stadium. It’s absolutely ridiculous to claim that since light appears in the photographs, and since light appears in cinematic production, the photographs must have been the product of cinematic production. Since you have completely ignored the actual argument here, that reflected light is still light and causes brightness, I will move on.

Rebuttal 4: Lack of Stars

Again my opponent uses this disbelief in the authority on the subject as a rebuttal. The camera carried on the Apollo 11 mission was actually a superior-quality camera for the time. “Despite the quality of the pictures, the camera was an engineering achievement in its own right. Due to limitations in size and weight, and the low bandwidth of the available data channel, it was constrained to produce only 325 scan-lines which reduced its resolution to half of the present-day norm.”3 The camera was specially made to operate in extreme environments such as microgravity and the lunar surface.

Rebuttal 5: Government Agency

I have already explained how this point is irrelevant. NASA is a government agency, yes. You have only stated that it is funded by the Government, but have only used the slippery-slope fallacy, creating implications but offering no evidence to back this up. There is nothing to counter to here.

Rebuttal 6: Medical Knowledge

The Gemini Program was more concentrated on understanding health in space to allow humans to walk on the Moon. “Gemini was more focused on developing the procedures and hardware needed to get humans to the moon. Its major medical goal was to ensure that astronauts could survive and work effectively for the roughly two weeks it would take to get to the moon and back.”4 While Mercury proved that humans could survive in space, considering microgravity and weightlessness, Gemini produced more in depth information about the wellbeing of the astronauts. “Space doctors were still exploring the implications for the long-term health and safety of astronauts and for their ability to carry out their duties…”4

Rebuttal 7: Space Race

My opponent states his own theory but provides no sources, questions my argument but provides no explanation. Nothing to counter.

i am talking about crater caused by rocket engine when they land on ground. my opponent says about crater caused by asteroid impact. these 2 are very much different.

besides when luner module landed it was burning fuel already.Apollo 11 landed with less fuel than other missions, and the astronauts also encountered a premature low fuel warning. Armstrong took semi-automatic control[15] and, with Aldrin calling out altitude and velocity data, landed at 20:17 UTC on July 20 with about 25 seconds of fuel left.

if it is burning fuel then there must be an exhost for fuel jets. if there is jet, there must be some scratch or some burning over the ground. but my point is that ground was totally intact. there is no scratch, no burning, no interference with ground. how this is possible?

also i have provided source. the video is the source. my opponent just overlooked it.

if it is of a superoir quality camera, how come there is such an ordinery limitation of bandwidth, size and weight? this is very strange.

3] different light

here my opponent agree that artificial lighting is used in movie studios. Artificial lighting is also used in stadiums. That must mean the astronauts were in a stadium. i thank him/ her for agreement.

4] govt. agency

i have already stated why govt. agency can lie.

5] medical knowledge

again no specific information about the findings of gemini project. only stating goal and exploring possibility does not clear the point.

6] space race

my opponent has no common sense so that he could understand. so nothing to encounter.

7] distance and speed

from the source given by my opponent, it is the 3rd stage rocket that get activated to push the spaceship into moon's orbital has the speed of 24500mph. the 3rd stage rocket gets activated when the spacecraft is very near the moon: almost close to its orbital. but how come the space craft travel the distance between earth and orbital of moon with less than 4 days?

by the way how come luner module come back to earth from moon with less than 4 day with just only one rocket engine when it went to the moon with 3 rocket engine?

I thank my opponent for his final argument and will now offer my final rebuttals. My opponent has dropped the flag waving argument.

Rebuttal 1: Landing Crater

No, I was comparing an asteroid impact with the impact of the Apollo 11 lunar capsule. I now see I should stop comparing things, it completely throws you off. Here is what I actually said: “asteroids (of different size) must be going around 36,000 to 160,000 mph to form even a small crater. To put this in perspective, the lunar module was traveling around 1.7 to 2.7 km/s, or 3,083 to 6,040 mph, significantly less, as it was descending.” This argument still stands. The Apollo 11 lunar capsule would not have made an impact crater.

My opponent now changes his argument to a “scratch or some burning over the ground,” and while I am tempted to ask him if he has ever been to the Moon landing site, I will quote Philip Plait in his book Bad Astronomy: “Rocket exhaust gases expand much quicker after leaving the engine nozzle in a vacuum than in an atmosphere. The effect of an atmosphere on rocket plumes can be easily seen in launches from Earth; as the rocket rises through the thinning atmosphere, the exhaust plumes broaden very noticeably. To lessen this, rocket engines designed for vacuums have longer bells than those designed for use on Earth, but they still cannot stop this spreading. The Moon lander's exhaust gases therefore expanded quickly well beyond the landing site. However, the descent engines did scatter a lot of very fine surface dust as seen in 16mm movies of each landing, and many mission commanders spoke of its effect on visibility. The landers were generally moving horizontally as well as vertically, and photos do show scouring of the surface along the final descent path. Finally, the lunar regolith is very compact below its surface dust layer, further making it impossible for the descent engine to blast out a "crater".”

Rebuttal 2: Lack of Stars

My opponent asks: “how come there is such an ordinary [sic] limitation of bandwidth, size and weight?” referring to the camera, of course. “NASA then approached Hasselblad to develop a camera for use in the space environment – they wanted at least 5000 working cycles in the Earth’s atmosphere, in pure oxygen and in a vacuum, using a 70 mm film magazine made for thin film which gave 160 exposures to a roll. A glass plate in the exposure frame engraved with 25 crosses allowed precision calculations to be made. The Apollo 11 camera had the mirror and focusing plate removed, minimum coating to control heat absorption and radiation.”1 As you can see, NASA and the camera developer Hasselblad were very exact with the camera specifications. Size and weight were an issue because the camera had to be carried around by the astronauts on the surface of the Moon.

Rebuttal 3: Different Light

W-what? The astronauts were in a stadium? I was being sarcastic. I honestly, completely do not know how to respond to this.

Rebuttal 4: Government Agency

My opponent has only stated that a government agency could lie but provided no evidence for motivation. He has not responded to my argument about NASA lying about the type of paint they used on the Saturn V rocket. Since they could lie about the paint, why didn’t they lie about the paint? The answer is no motivation – and my opponent has not provided reasonable motivation at all.

Rebuttal 5: Space Race

Once again, you only created a theory about how questionable America’s technology was but provided no evidence. If “common sense” entails understanding your theory with absolutely no evidence, then yes, I have none!

Rebuttal 6: Distance and Speed

My opponent states: “the 3rd stage rocket gets activated when the spacecraft is very near the moon: almost close to its orbital.” This is not true at all. The third stage of the Saturn V (the SIV-B or S4b) “injects the space vehicle into earth orbit.”2 This “parking orbit,” as it is commonly called, allowed the astronauts to prepare for the translunar journey, where the S4b would propel them at the 24,500 mph I mentioned earlier. I want to repeat, the S4b injects the vehicle into earth orbit, not the Moon’s orbit. You can see this in the following picture.3

This clarification renders the rest of your argument false.

Rebuttal 7: Television

My opponent has stated: “that makes the entire case just a film with no solid ground.” Yes, just completely ignore the rockets, lunar module, artifacts, tools, etc., in museums, the thousands and thousands of scientists that worked on the mission, the astronauts themselves, moon rocks which have been identified as originating from the Moon, and, most importantly, the hundreds of scientists who have worked on debunking these “moon hoax” theories.

Conclusion

I have shown through numerous rebuttals that my opponent has been basing his theories on what he believes to be “common sense” and not actual, tangible evidence. I have used many reliable sources to show how my opponent’s supposed common sense is incompatible with the actual scientific thinking that went into planning and executing something as difficult as the lunar landing. I have always had a respect for the work that went into this feat, and I hate to see people try to use their own “logic” to call everyone who worked on the lunar program a liar.

Reasons for voting decision: Pro dismisses very legit arguments and sources on the grounds that "all government agencies lie about everything all the time" or something like that. Arguments and sources to the con who was far more convincing then the Pro was

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.